Here’s a gift link to the article:
They posted the entire debate as a campaign ad?
They are next-level trolling the Trump campaign, yes.
You missed his scowling, exaggerated eyerolls, smirks, head shakes, grimaces, and barely reined-in fury. Not to mention how old and raddled he looked.
She looked great – calm, sensible, young, healthy, well in control of herself.
How did Harris do so well in the debate? Microphone earrings, of course!
Ha! Well said.
I was hoping for that too. When Trump brought it up, my very first thought was, ‘Dude. You got played. And you don’t even know it.’
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
We’ll have to agree to disagree. What I heard was her basically ignoring the question and pivoting to her economic policy, i.e. talking about the future. Which in some ways is fine, she needed to talk about it (and did, several times), but I didn’t think dodging that question was a smart way to begin. YMMV.
Yeah. One of the big criticisms of Democrats is that they’re ignoring the very real problems that people are facing right now. I don’t really think that’s true on a policy level, but on a connect-with-people level it has some validity. Acknowledging that inflation has put a pinch on people, and that people aren’t just imagining that, would have been a really good intro to talking about how she’s going to address it.
And my new favorite comment from online: He calls her a Marxist, but she’s not the one getting publicly owned.
Big Butt, Big Numbers!
Well, what could she have actually said on the matter that would work in that kind of forum? It’s something a President has a limited ability to do anything about in the first place, much less with a plan that can be set out in a few pithy sentences.
Debates aren’t really the right place to serious address complex issues (or even most simple ones), they are for candidates to snipe at each other and place to the audience. And even trying will get you slammed in as anti-intellectual a nation as the US.
Ha! That’s really funny.
I thought it was pretty clear that both candidates came in with an opening speech they intended to make, regardless of what question they were ostensibly responding to. Which is pretty much SOP for these things.
If she was trying to appeal to me, she should have acknowledged administration failures and some weak points in her arguments. Admitting to not having all the answers makes the answers you do have more plausible — to me. That’s part of what I learned from my English composition professor. But guess what? Very few undecided Pennsylvanians were in that class. Probably none!
Harris did extraordinary well. Expecting better is unreasonable.
Here’s an outstanding take with this theme:
True. I have no real problem with that, though. Maybe we should stop calling them “debates”? That might not be so bad.
Let’s look at Trump’s policy statements and comments about Harris last night:
First, if you’re wanting clear policy statements from a candidate, what do you make of this?
“I have concepts of a plan. I’m not President right now, but if we come up with something, I would only change it if we come up with something that’s better and less expensive. And there are concepts and options we have to do that, and you’ll be hearing about it in the not too distant future.”
How can you say that Harris is not providing enough policy details when Trump, who was President for four years and campaigned on repealing Obamacare, still can’t say what he would replace it with, but will get back to the American people “in the not too distant future”?
And then there’s these statements:
“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs—the people that came in,” Trump continued. They’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what’s happening in our country, and it’s a shame."
Harris Wants to Do “Transgender Operations on Illegal Aliens That Are in Prison”
Which of Harris’s replies do you think are worse than these, @Max_S ? What policy statement has she said that is so bad, it would make you say, “Gotta go with the old guy who thinks immigrants are eating dogs and states are executing babies”?
On what basis do you think Trump did better than Harris, when he’s saying these things that sound more like Grampa when you visit him in the home on the weekend?
Those who said that the moderators only fact-checked on a few issues, clearly forgot a key moment in the debate. David Muir pointed out that tariffs are literally the opposite of what Trump claims they are, and that they cost the US money, not foreign countries.
It was brief but it was there. Here is a link to the transcript:
And I’ll quote the moment:
DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I do want to drill down on something you both brought up. The vice president brought up your tariffs you responded and let’s drill down on this because your plan is what she calls is a essentially a national sales tax. Your proposal calls for tariffs as you pointed out here, on foreign imports across the board. You recently said that you might double your plan, imposing tariffs up to 20% on good coming into this country. As you know many economists say that with tariffs at that level costs are then passed onto the consumer. Vice President Harris has argued it’ll mean higher prices on gas, food, clothing medication arguing it costs the typical family nearly four thousand dollars a year. Do you believe Americans can afford higher prices because of tariffs.
It wasn’t presented as a fact check, but it effectively was, because it contradicted Trump’s claims that tariffs allow the country to profit from foreign governments; it’s the opposite though, because they’re basically a tax on Americans.
And yes, Kamala pointed that out too when she kept repeating that Trump’s tariffs are just raising taxes on Americans and that he’ll do it more if elected, he’s even promising to do it more when he says he’ll bring more tariffs.
I just think that “admitting to your failures” is terrible debate strategy. Relatively few voters would see the full explanation that she gives and be able to put her comments in context. Many, many more will see a commercial with a grainy, black-and-white photo of Harris overdubbed with her saying, “inflation rose during our Administration” and " inflation that we haven’t seen since the 1980s," cutting to a working mom crying at her family’s grocery bills.
It’s rarely the debate itself that moves polls, but rather the soundbites and clips that people will hear in news reporting, social media and attack ads.
Yeah, sometimes telling the truth can kill you in an election. I remember in the Canadian election in 1993, then PM Kim Campbell told the truth, that we wouldn’t see major job recovery from the current recession for 12 to 18 months. She got dragged over the coals for that, lost the election (probably the worst loss in Canadian history), but in the end, her prediction was pretty much spot-on.
You probably shouldn’t actively lie, but telling the truth can sometimes be a problem. Better to talk about something else entirely.